| Audited Accounts are now out 12:04 - Mar 13 with 28572 views | Shaky |
For club: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00123414/filing-history
For holding company: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04305508/filing-history
Will try to find time to crunch the numbers later, but quick glimpse shows the huge increase in operating costs is all substantially down to staff costs.
As I said previously, it is hard to imagine how even the lions share can be attibutable to the playing staff given the departures.
What is certain is the for example Peralman' s salary is lumped in there, and potentally also some kind of remuneration for the US property developer on the board of the parent company. How much is attributable to this remains unclear, however.
|  |
| |  |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 15:31 - Mar 16 with 3131 views | Shaky |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 15:19 - Mar 16 by londonlisa2001 |
It's really simple.
We are in the premier league in which case we get the money.
We are not in the premier league in which case we do not buy the players we bought and we sell others.
There isn't not one single scenario that sees us fail to receive premier league money and yet still buy premier league players. Not one. So there NEVER could have been a £66m 'hole' that will need to be paid for this year. I did not say deferred income shouldn't be part of working capital. I said it was not a 'hole' that would need to be financed - you described it as 'money that has to be found'.
Now I'm bored of explaining this to you.
You have no idea what you are talking about. |
Good work, Lisa, using a tried and tested recipe; put all manner of related and unrelated factoids together into a nice mixture, form them into some paragraphs, and walk away.
Job done. | |
| |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 15:39 - Mar 16 with 3114 views | Shaky |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 15:19 - Mar 16 by londonlisa2001 |
It's really simple.
We are in the premier league in which case we get the money.
We are not in the premier league in which case we do not buy the players we bought and we sell others.
There isn't not one single scenario that sees us fail to receive premier league money and yet still buy premier league players. Not one. So there NEVER could have been a £66m 'hole' that will need to be paid for this year. I did not say deferred income shouldn't be part of working capital. I said it was not a 'hole' that would need to be financed - you described it as 'money that has to be found'.
Now I'm bored of explaining this to you.
You have no idea what you are talking about. |
And to simplify just one question for you: what was the club's cash position the day before the Sky TV pre-payment was received.
All I ask is you give me a number.
Thanks so much. | |
| |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 15:55 - Mar 16 with 3086 views | swan65split |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 20:36 - Mar 15 by E20Jack |
An idiot that thinks people believe his transfer rubbish and the fact he watches such delights as the South African league on a regular basis? Or were you thinking something else? |
showing signs of obsession here me thinks, to go along with the other things..lol
Chris |  | | |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 16:25 - Mar 16 with 3041 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 15:39 - Mar 16 by Shaky |
And to simplify just one question for you: what was the club's cash position the day before the Sky TV pre-payment was received.
All I ask is you give me a number.
Thanks so much. |
£47m (or near to that) worse than it was the day after.
As I have already said a few times.
And as I've also said, if we knew that we were not getting the Sky money we wouldn't have bought the players we did so we still wouldn't have ended it with a £66m hole to be financed at the moment as the £47m income reported as a post balance sheet event would have covered a large chunk of it without us making the purchases that we did. As would parachute payments. As would sales of other players in preparation for a season in the championship.
This is beyond ridiculous Shaky. You are refusing to accept that selling players is part of how we finance ourselves, but it is simply a fact that all clubs like us do so.
The big shame is that some of the points you've made are relevant, and I've agreed with them. Such as saying cash flow management is crucial. That making bad choices on players is damaging and we can't afford to make too many mistakes. And yet all that's been lost by this nonsensical mania you have for trying to prove that no one else on this board could possibly understand finance.
There's an interesting discussion that could be had about finance. I've already alluded to issues such as contingencies and how they may affect us. There are discussions around commercial income. Discussions around the stadium. Discussions around how operating costs are so distorted by us sacking two entire lots of management team in one season. Etc etc etc. But you seem to have no real interest in anything other than trying to make the club look as though it was destitute. You even used the words 'going bust'. It's stupid Shaky. Fans get worried by that sort of misguided nonsense. And it's wrong. |  | | |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 16:38 - Mar 16 with 3028 views | Shaky |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 16:25 - Mar 16 by londonlisa2001 |
£47m (or near to that) worse than it was the day after.
As I have already said a few times.
And as I've also said, if we knew that we were not getting the Sky money we wouldn't have bought the players we did so we still wouldn't have ended it with a £66m hole to be financed at the moment as the £47m income reported as a post balance sheet event would have covered a large chunk of it without us making the purchases that we did. As would parachute payments. As would sales of other players in preparation for a season in the championship.
This is beyond ridiculous Shaky. You are refusing to accept that selling players is part of how we finance ourselves, but it is simply a fact that all clubs like us do so.
The big shame is that some of the points you've made are relevant, and I've agreed with them. Such as saying cash flow management is crucial. That making bad choices on players is damaging and we can't afford to make too many mistakes. And yet all that's been lost by this nonsensical mania you have for trying to prove that no one else on this board could possibly understand finance.
There's an interesting discussion that could be had about finance. I've already alluded to issues such as contingencies and how they may affect us. There are discussions around commercial income. Discussions around the stadium. Discussions around how operating costs are so distorted by us sacking two entire lots of management team in one season. Etc etc etc. But you seem to have no real interest in anything other than trying to make the club look as though it was destitute. You even used the words 'going bust'. It's stupid Shaky. Fans get worried by that sort of misguided nonsense. And it's wrong. |
We have winner.
Yes, £47million worse off is the correct answer.
Which means the day before the club received a sub on the following year's pocket money from Sky, net financial debt was £50 million.
With a further £20 million to be found due to the remaining working capital shortfall.
£70 million in total. There's your non-hole hole.
And I never once said player sales would not be on the cards, instead i tried to quantify the impact on and stress test the balance sheet, which is why the net book value is critical.
Unfortunately much of this went well over your head, Lisa. | |
| |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 16:45 - Mar 16 with 3019 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 16:38 - Mar 16 by Shaky |
We have winner.
Yes, £47million worse off is the correct answer.
Which means the day before the club received a sub on the following year's pocket money from Sky, net financial debt was £50 million.
With a further £20 million to be found due to the remaining working capital shortfall.
£70 million in total. There's your non-hole hole.
And I never once said player sales would not be on the cards, instead i tried to quantify the impact on and stress test the balance sheet, which is why the net book value is critical.
Unfortunately much of this went well over your head, Lisa. |
I explained it all on page 2 of this very thread.
But you carry on. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Audited Accounts are now out on 17:38 - Mar 16 with 2969 views | Shaky |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 17:42 - Mar 14 by londonlisa2001 |
Shaky - I haven't had chance yo have a full look, but after a quick skim, some of the points you make are not entirely correct.
Firstly, on the working capital point, £47m of the £66m 'hole' you refer to is actually deferred income. In other words it's the Sky monies received that can't be recognised until the start of the season. So in August, that disappears and gets treated as income, and the 'hole' becomes £19m not £66m.
Secondly, the player sales / purchases & new contract costs (including all fees) that happened as post balance sheet events (so after 31 July but before 31 October when these accounts were signed) shows total sales of £47m and total purchases plus registration fees (so including new contracts costs) of £29m. That's a surplus of £18m, so your working capital deficit was wiped out by October.
In response to some other points you've made. The total director's costs is the same as that paid to the highest Director, so no fees are being paid to anyone else (you mentioned one of the US directors).
On the operating costs, based on what is said in these accounts, I suspect (I don't know) that impairments have been taken against players that have gone out on loan (Baston for example). Also, if you look at the note on players leaving after the balance sheet date, it says that where they've left for less than the carrying value, we've taken that as an impairment charge through these accounts. You can't see the amounts involved, but Baston alone may have been significantly written down.
I'm not attempting by the way to say that the cashflow position is great, just to say that it is nowhere near what you have said here. [Post edited 14 Mar 2018 17:44]
|
"on the working capital point, £47m of the £66m 'hole' you refer to is actually deferred income. In other words it's the Sky monies received that can't be recognised until the start of the season. So in August, that disappears and gets treated as income, and the 'hole' becomes £19m not £66m. "
I assume this is what you are referring to on P5 so let me quickly explain why it is wrong to say the hole is reduced to £19m, when the deferred income is recognised on the P&L.
With sales generally you obviously tend to receive cash.
But in this case the cash as already been received or prepaid.
Let's say the £47m in sales is recognised in Q1, cash costs are £47m, and ihe profit for the period is £0.
Profit is normally the starting point for some sort of estimation of cash-flow, and here £0 suggests a neutral impact.
But in fact the sales have not, and will never be converted to cash, becasue it has been prepaid.
So the simplified reconcilliation of profit to cash-flow goes as follows:
Profit: £0
+/- (increase)/decrease in net working capital: -£47m
=Net cash-flow: -£47m
That is one reason this system is used and specifically excludes cash, otherwise it would result in a circular calculation.
And the hole remains, it has just been shuffled around. | |
| |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 17:54 - Mar 16 with 2958 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 17:38 - Mar 16 by Shaky |
"on the working capital point, £47m of the £66m 'hole' you refer to is actually deferred income. In other words it's the Sky monies received that can't be recognised until the start of the season. So in August, that disappears and gets treated as income, and the 'hole' becomes £19m not £66m. "
I assume this is what you are referring to on P5 so let me quickly explain why it is wrong to say the hole is reduced to £19m, when the deferred income is recognised on the P&L.
With sales generally you obviously tend to receive cash.
But in this case the cash as already been received or prepaid.
Let's say the £47m in sales is recognised in Q1, cash costs are £47m, and ihe profit for the period is £0.
Profit is normally the starting point for some sort of estimation of cash-flow, and here £0 suggests a neutral impact.
But in fact the sales have not, and will never be converted to cash, becasue it has been prepaid.
So the simplified reconcilliation of profit to cash-flow goes as follows:
Profit: £0
+/- (increase)/decrease in net working capital: -£47m
=Net cash-flow: -£47m
That is one reason this system is used and specifically excludes cash, otherwise it would result in a circular calculation.
And the hole remains, it has just been shuffled around. |
You are completely missing the point of what I'm saying. I can't be bothered to repeat it for the tenth time. | | | |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 19:33 - Mar 16 with 2889 views | plasjack |
Statistics and accountancy, rather watch paint dry. My simple question is are we going to be solvent for the foreseeable future?. |  | | |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 20:26 - Mar 16 with 2844 views | max936 |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 17:00 - Mar 16 by WarwickHunt |
Hope so. I've run out of popcorn. |
Its the way you tell em  |  |
| |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 21:37 - Mar 16 with 2787 views | E20Jack |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 15:55 - Mar 16 by swan65split |
showing signs of obsession here me thinks, to go along with the other things..lol
Chris |
Oh I agree. He definitely is, not on your level of course but daps is pretty close behind you on the obsession ladder. |  |
| |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 21:40 - Mar 16 with 2783 views | Banosswan |
Can't wait for the annual Shaky vs Lisa financial diatribe to end. |  |
| Ever since my son was... never conceived, because I've never had consensual sex without money involved... I've always kind of looked at you as... a thing, that I could live next to... in accordance with state laws. | | Poll: | How do you like your steak? |
| |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 23:55 - Mar 16 with 2699 views | jack_lord |
I don't know why people are trying to make it all so complicated. |  |
| |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 00:32 - Mar 17 with 2678 views | swan65split |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 16:58 - Mar 16 by Phil_S |
Shakys books have moved from his bookshelf to his laptop table (probably purchased from Ikea)
Lisa has told him that the sky is blue but he is continually saying it is green
Meanwhile we play Spurs in a first FA Cup quarter final for 54 years tomorrow and I want to win. |
ive predicted a Cup run, hope it doesnt end today. remember with pride our game at Leeds in the 70s and the homer ref , and the trip home with TM | | | |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 00:33 - Mar 17 with 2676 views | swan65split |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 21:37 - Mar 16 by E20Jack |
Oh I agree. He definitely is, not on your level of course but daps is pretty close behind you on the obsession ladder. |
your still in denial I see , never mind .......one Day.  | | | |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 01:47 - Mar 17 with 2654 views | theloneranger |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 00:32 - Mar 17 by swan65split |
ive predicted a Cup run, hope it doesnt end today. remember with pride our game at Leeds in the 70s and the homer ref , and the trip home with TM |
I remember that train trip home with TM, a brilliant night.
A certain incident on that train will only be known to the people who were there 
The following week I spent a brilliant day and evening with TM drinking in the Mermaid in the Mumbles.
He decided he wanted me to take imaginary pens against him in the bar. After diving left and right, he told me he had saved 12 pens on the trot.
I was abs gutted, lost all my confidence and have never taken another penalty!!
RIP TM ....... Played football with a smile on your face |  |
| Everyday above ground ... Is a good day! 😎 |
| |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 05:17 - Mar 17 with 2618 views | E20Jack |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 00:33 - Mar 17 by swan65split |
your still in denial I see , never mind .......one Day. |
You're* | |
| |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 10:15 - Mar 17 with 2538 views | Shaky |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 17:54 - Mar 16 by londonlisa2001 |
You are completely missing the point of what I'm saying. I can't be bothered to repeat it for the tenth time. |
Cut the fcuking crap, Lisa.
What you are saying is in black and white on this page copied from page 2 of this thread :
"£47m of the £66m 'hole' . . . gets treated as income, and the 'hole' becomes £19m not £66m."
To which I responded you don't understand working capital. i refrained from posting anything stronger because I did not want to embarrass you and undermine your position as the Trust's finance affiliate; whatever your shortcomings you are no doubt still an upgrade on what was there before.
But I was also flabbergasted by such a basic failure to understand the dynamics of working capital.
Then you doubled down on you intellectual hole by demonstrating you don't even know how to treat cash in financial analysis!
What the fcuk have you been doing in you professional career? I struggle to imagine you have been involved in anything of significance at even a junior level of finance where this lack of basic basic understanding would not have been exposed.
I knew you weren't anywhere near my level but this is a fcuking joke. I am absolutely appalled. But nevertheless still willing to help. | |
| |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 10:32 - Mar 17 with 2518 views | Gowerjack |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 14:57 - Mar 16 by Shaky |
Yes, i included the deferred income/TV prepayment as part of my net working capital calculation.
You say it shouldn't be there.
This is what the Corporate Finance Institute says: "Net Working Capital (NWC) is the difference between a company’s current assets (net of cash) and current liabilities (net of debt)"
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/finance/what-is-net-wo
The partners at McKinsey who wrote the book I posted a pic from said it should include everything except for "interest bearing liabilities", which was a much better definition in the days before zero interest rates on cash.
Is deferred income income interest bearing or a form of debt? No, therefore it is included, and on page 2/3 I explained the technical reason how it is in effect borrowing from the following period's receivables.
This is a joke.
And your last pragraph is gibberish |
I cowin' luvs Google me.... |  |
| |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 10:33 - Mar 17 with 2516 views | WarwickHunt |
*adds popcorn to shopping list* |  | | |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 10:48 - Mar 17 with 2504 views | QJumpingJack |
The Trust Director is an accountant.
Does he have a view on these accounts? | | | |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 11:04 - Mar 17 with 2484 views | Shaky |
| Audited Accounts are now out on 10:33 - Mar 17 by WarwickHunt |
*adds popcorn to shopping list* |
Let's hope Lisa has the good sense to go away and reflect seriously on this, rather than sling more mud at me in a vain attempt to cover up the glaring holes in her own skills. The cheeky fcuking cow. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
